VIII. Why “Great Controversy” Was Revised.  

During a question-and-answer meeting at Keene, Texas, 1910, which was being conducted by A. G. Daniels, president of the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, some one asked why “The Great Controversy” had been revised. Daniels stated that Mrs. White, in the old edition, made a number of statements which historians have been unable to verify, with only their human records; and, therefore, to keep down questions, she and her publishers thought best that those statements be removed from the book. I was at school in the college at Keene at that time, and was in the audience and heard this statement. Naturally, I was curious to know in what particulars Mrs. White had (to use a common expression) “put one over” on the historians; and at my leisure following the conference I made a number of comparisons of the text of the new edition with that of the old, and I record a few of my findings as follows:

I.

“After the Romans had surrounded the city, they unexpectedly withdrew their forces, at a time when everything seemed favorable for an immediate attack.” (Old Edition, page 32.). 

“After the Romans under Cestius had surrounded the city, they unexpectedly abandoned the siege, when everything seemed favorable for an immediate attack.” (Revised, page 30.)

Note the effect of the addition of “under Cestius.” Note the difference between “withdrew” and “abandoned.” “Cestius,” the Roman general, is not to be found in the old edition. Compare the following quotations with the ones just given:

II.

“Terrible were the calamities which fell upon Jerusalem in the siege of the city by Titus.” (Old Edition, page 32.)

“Terrible were the calamities that fell upon Jerusalem when the siege was resumed by Titus.” (Revised, page 31.)

In the revised edition it is clear that Cestius opened the attack on Jerusalem and then abandoned the siege. This makes it possible for another general (Titus) to open another siege, which is entirely different from the one undertaken by Cestius. In the old edition Titus conducted all the sieges, did all the withdrawing, abandoning, and all the re-sieging of the city. After the old edition was published, it is clear that Mrs. White read some other author on the fall of Jerusalem besides Josephus, and that that other author told her about Cestius and his work. This was news, and she put Cestius into the sieging also. 

III.

“A few years after the issue of Constantine’s decree, the bishop of Rome conferred on Sunday the title of Lord’s day.” (Old Edition, page 55.)

Omitted in the revised edition.

This is an ideal piece of forgery. Mrs. White was misled, however, by J. N. Andrews, the Sabbath historian, in making this statement.

IV.

“Here the youth received instruction. The Bible was their textbook. They studied and committed to memory the words of Holy Writ.” (Old Edition, page 73.)

“From their pastors the youth received instruction. While attention was given to branches of general learning, the Bible was made the chief study.” (Revised, page 68.)

This was written of the Waldenses. When Mrs. White wrote the statement in the old edition, Adventists had no schools; but at the time of the revision of the “Great Controversy,” Adventists had begun to formulate something like a literary system, and, consequently, their educators had read something of the Waldenses themselves. Through some turn or other Mrs. White learned that her former statement about the Bible being their textbook was not at all true. So she graciously made the change. That’s all.

V.

“For three days the butchery went on; more than thirty thousand perished.” (Old Edition, page 191.)   

“For seven days the massacre was continued in Paris…Seventy thousand of the very flower of the nation perished.” (Revised, page 272.)

Imagine Daniel revising Dan. 9:24 so as to make it read “thirty weeks are determined upon thy people” instead of “seventy weeks,” as it now stands; and imagine John on Patmos revising the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse so as to make it read “three heads and ten horns” instead of “seven heads and ten horns,” as it now stands. If you can imagine such a thing, then you can understand the foregoing quotations without confusion.

VI.

“When the churches rejected the counsel of God by rejecting the Advent message, the Lord rejected them.” (Old Edition, page 232.)

“God looks down upon these apostate bodies and declares them daughters of a harlot.” (Old Edition, page 324.)

Both quotations omitted in the revised edition.

VII.

Chapter X., old edition. A three-page speech by Satan is omitted entirely in the revised edition.

VIII.

“Though originally a heathen statute, it was enforced by the emperor after his nominal acceptance of the Christian religion.” (Old Edition, page 391.)

“Though virtually a heathen statute, it was enforced by the emperor after his nominal acceptance of Christianity.” (Revised, page 574.)

She here speaks of Constantine’s statute, making the first day of the week, which was being observed in honor of Christ by his followers, a legal holiday throughout the empire. In the old edition she declared that this statute was “originally” a heathen statute; in the new it is “virtually” a heathen statute. A wonderful difference!

IX.

“In the last conflict the Sabbath will become the special point of controversy throughout all Christendom.” (Old Edition, page 444.)

“The Sabbath has become the special point of controversy throughout Christendom.” (New Edition, page 615.)

She is here speaking of “The Time of Trouble,” this being the heading of the chapters in the two books, respectively, from which these statements are taken. This “time of trouble” begins “when the third angel’s message closes.” (Old Edition, page 431; Revised, page 613.)

For years Mrs. White and her followers had been preaching that in “the last conflict” the Sabbath would become the special point of controversy. Such a statement, of course, naturally tended to put the time of trouble off a few years in the future. But by inserting “has become” for “will become” in the quotation just given, this fault is remedied. But this got her into a greater predicament. The “last conflict” is not to open until “the third angel’s message closes.” This she states herself. But when “the third angel’s message closes,” then the door of mercy also closes. Since, therefore, the Sabbath “has become” the special point of controversy throughout Christendom, and since it was not to become the special point of controversy until “the time of trouble,” and since the “time of trouble” was not to begin until the door of mercy closed, it follows that the door of mercy has closed !

X.

“In the lives of all those who reject truth there are moments when conscience awakens, when memory presents the torturing recollection of a life of hypocrisy, and the soul is harassed with vain regrets.” (Revised Edition, page 644.)

In the same edition we find the following:

“Familiarity with sin will inevitably cause it to appear less repulsive.” (Page 509.)

Reader, allow yourself to stop and figure out how Mrs. White knew these solemn truths. She claimed to have lived a life free from hypocrisy from her childhood. When did she learn, therefore, that “familiarity with sin” finally causes it to appear less repulsive? Likewise, when did she learn that there are moments in the lives of all of us “who reject truth” when “conscience awakens?” How did she know that “memory presents the torturing recollection of a life of hypocrisy?” How did she know that at such times “the soul is harassed with vain regrets?”

No one can make a statement like either of these unless one of two things is so— (1) he must either copy it from some one else who learned by experience and told his experience, or (2) he must be speaking out of his own individual experience.

There is something in these two quotations that seems awfully human to me. There is not that clanging emptiness in them that is always in evidence in the words of those who have not felt what they are trying to say. These are not platitudes; they are heartbeats.

---

CONTENTS